Animal Testing: Barbaric Scientific Practice or Absolute Necessity?

Animal Testing, also referred to as Vivisection, is an extremely controversial ethical issue. An issue that tends to stir up a lot of emotion in the people who are advocating or opposing it, and understandable so as there is a fine line between helpful scientific research, and barbaric practices that wreak torture. I personally am opposed to animals being used in medical research studies for a number of reasons.

To begin, we must first have mutual understanding of what exactly animal testing is, and how it specifically is defined. Animal testing by definition is, “the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, especially for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs” (Dictionary.com, 2003-2010). More specifically, it is testing conducted with the intention to determine toxicity, dosing, and effectiveness of test drugs before going on to conduct human experimental assessments (biology online, 2008). Likewise, animal testing has also been referred to as Vivisection, and though this ultimately boils down to experimental medical animal research, vivisection focuses more on the “practice of subjecting living animals to cutting operations, especially in order to advance physiological and pathological knowledge” (Dictionary.com, 2010). When put in those terms, it sounds a little cruel and unusual, does it not? I certainly think so. Part I:

Having said this, I am a self proclaimed oppositionist of animal testing in medical research as a whole for a number of reasons. The biggest of these reasons being the fact that I believe it to be inhumane to conduct testing on animals as we as a society rarely, if ever, apply the same scientific exploration/experimentation to human beings. Why might you ask? The answer is simple; we rarely if ever conduct such testing on human beings because it is thought to be inhumane. So, why is it humane to inflict such sufferings on animal’s lives when we refuse to do the same of our own? To be perfectly honest, I cannot think of a single reason for such justification. What’s more is that this sort of mentality certainly questions the true nature of ethics, and I for one cannot help but take the utilitarian view that pain and suffering is pain and suffering regardless of human or animal (Waller, 2008, p.276). Should we be treated differently in terms of suffering? I certainly do not think so, but the truth of the matter is we are.

Additionally, I oppose animal testing in medical research, because I believe that there is little if any regard for animal rights. The test subjects involved are not only treated as a means to an end, but also are unable to give proper consent for such testing. Consider for a moment if the shoe were on the other foot, what if you were being used as a test subject for medical research and had not given consent? What if the results were detrimental to your wellbeing or worse, resulted in certain death? Can you honestly tell me that you or your loved ones would not seek justice as your rights were so obviously disregarded? I believe that you would, and believe your loved ones would as well. So why is it that non-human animals, which live and breathe just as “we” do, are considered differently? Again, I seriously do not believe such a distinction should be made. Perhaps this is because I cannot decipher the difference here. What, may I ask, is the difference? Do animals not have the same right to life as human beings? I certainly think so.

Furthermore, such testing results are not absolute. While it is true that some animals bare certain similar physiology to human beings, they are not identical. In fact some of the animals that are used for testing, do not even come close to “our” physiology (rabbits, mice & rats), yet are still tested upon (Lalwani, 2010). What’s more is the fact that there have been several cases where the benefits of the medical breakthrough were drastically outweighed by the consequences of the...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...﻿
AnimalTesting
Every year, over 100 million animals are painfully put to death because of animaltesting. Experimentation on animals goes way back since the beginning of time. Typically it is conducted for advancement in scientific research, to test products and food before going out into the market, to find treatments or test medical drugs, and to protect people and the environment. Animal experimentation has been a controversial issue for quite some time, but has yet to be put to an end. Vivisection should be prohibited and there are, in fact, more reliable alternatives to these inhumane experimentations.
The acts of animaltesting are extremely cruel and unethical and no living creature should have to endure the variety of pain that test subjects go through without their own consent. Millions of animals suffer from experimentation each year, but that number is not even precise since there are several countries that do not publish their data. Animals can receive something as little as an injection, or something as extreme as an organ transplant. Experiments classify the pain as being mild, moderate, severe, or unclassified. 61% of experiments fall into the category of severe suffering. Many of these severe tests predict from the start that an animal will die. Sometimes scientists try to...

...Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary. This essay will examine the arguments for and against animaltesting.
В наши дни часто обсуждаются проблемы, связанные с экспериментами на животных. Часто говорится, что животные не должны использоваться в тестировании, потому что это не столь необходимо и жестоко. Это эссе исследует аргументы за и против испытания на животных.
Animal research has been used throughout recorded history to better understand the world around us. Almost all states actively research on animals at present. The total scale of all research on vertebrates is hard to measure, but according to some estimates it could be as high as 115,000,000 animals per year, with the vast majority of these being euthanized at the end of the period of experimentation. Much research on animals is undertaken by the pharmaceutical industry, and due to the relative paucity of drugs that make it on to the market place after the initial testing phases, the global cost of each successful new drug in terms of animal lives, is around 5.75 million animals.() By contrast the now shrinking industry sector on chemical safety testing using...

...101-05
14 Nov. 2011
Animal Research: Is it right or wrong?
The discussion of whether or not animal dissection and research is necessary as teaching tools and is morally correct has been dominated by two different views. On the one hand, some may argue that this violates animal rights, and how there are better ways of going about research and teaching. On the other hand, others also contend that this is a good way for researchers and students alike to get “hands on” experience, and is also morally just since it is used for a good purpose. Others even maintain that by using animals for something other than teaching is inaccurate since mice can react and have different symptoms compared to humans. My own view is that animal dissection and vivisection is just in how it can be used to find cures for various diseases, also depending on the type of research being done the similarity between the animal and humans isn’t that big of a factor and is taken into account. However, acts that are not done solely for research or knowledge should not be allowed since it is being done without a logical reason and can be considered as a form of animal abuse.
May it be for a biology class where students dissect frogs, to a research lab where mice are used to study the symptoms and effects of various mental illnesses, animals have been used for research and teaching for years....

...﻿AnimalTesting
Every year, the United States uses approximately 26 million animals for testing. Animals are used to test the safety of new medications designed for human use. Scientists have used animals to test their products as far back as 500 BC. Supporters of animaltesting have many arguments of why they believe it is justified. I disagree with all of these arguments. I do not think there is any possible way to justify it. Medical animaltesting is morally wrong.
Humans make decisions about what they consider is “right” based on their internal morals and external ethics. Morals are internal sets of guidelines that we have set for ourselves to determine what is right or wrong. They show how an individual thinks things should go, according to his or her perspective based on these guidelines. We set these internal guidelines because of our beliefs of what is right or wrong. If we do not follow these morals, we will feel uncomfortable and guilty. Some people may choose to base their morals on ethics. Ethics are rules of conduct that we follow in respect to our culture. They define how things are according to the rules. Ethics are external; they are based on our surrounding culture and social system. We follow ethics because society says it is right. If we do not follow these ethics, we will be faced with...

...there are 360 million pets in peoples house holds.” The average family has four people and at least one pet living in a house. Animals are taken in as a family member and not as just some creature. They are loved and cared for by most Americans. Animals have feelings and rights just like humans do. So when Animals are treated harshly they feel pain and suffering just as much as humans can.
What I already know is that testing on defenseless animals is in humane. Animals have feelings and rights just like humans do. When being tested most animals are put in danger, treated lousy and are even killed. Scientists go as far as torturing animals just to get a meager quantity of information. Animals should not have to suffer especially when studies show that 70% of the time scientists find little to no data from the experiment that they just conducted.
What I want to know
I need to know more about how animals are affected by medical experimentations? Is there other ways to experiment and research information without the use of harming animals? I would also like to know what could be done to help the animals and prevent the harming of animal subjects. What are the scientists doing to the animals being tested and why?
With the list of questions I made above I...

...AnimalTesting is Wrong
Millions of animals are used every year for a wide variety of scientific and medical purposes. Some of this scientific research is to learn about and improve the welfare of animals, but most of the animal experiments are unfortunately conducted for human benefits. An estimated eight million animals are used in painful experiments, which can range from getting pricked with a needle to more severe experiments, and ten percent of these animals do not receive painkillers. Then after all of the pain that they had been put through, some of them are euthanized when scientists are no longer in need of experimenting on them. Animal rights advocates want government agencies to impose heavy restrictions on animal research, but their opposition of painful animal experimentation is matched by the growing concern that these restrictions would pose a threat to scientific progress. Although there has been scientific progress from this, animaltesting is still cruel, immoral, and unnecessary because all animals, like humans, have value and are worthy of being treated with respect.
In many cases, animals are used in order to make sure that a certain product will have no negative side affects on humans....

...of AnimalTesting
Christine B
Beecher High School
Animal Experimentation is Barbaric
On average every second one animal in a USA laboratory is killed from an intrusive experiment (“Vivisection/Animals in Research”, 2012). Controversy on animal experimentation has dated back to as early as 1876, when France made the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act, the first ever recorded to stop animal experimentation (“Irish Statute Book”, 2002). Some people argue that animaltesting is necessary to save human lives. The experiments are not only barbaric but also unnecessary. The experiments have not been proven to be very helpful, but very distressful to the animals. Many people say that animals cannot feel pain, but why experiment on an animal that is not the same as experimenting on humans? The United States alone spends too much money on animal research that is not useful to humans. Animal experimentation should immediately be outlawed; it is the worst kind of scientific research that can be conducted.
Animal experimentation has been going on since before Christ and has been recorded many times in history. The earliest known animal experimentation was from Aristotle in the third and fourth centuries...

...﻿AnimalTesting: a Vital Necessity
In order to save people’s lives animaltesting is necessary. 43% of adults in the United States say they are against animaltesting (Alas). Yet most the adults who say they are against animaltesting take medicine and use products that all have been tested on animals. The advances made from animaltesting have increased our biomedical technology significantly. Almost every breakthrough we have had has some part of animaltesting. Without animaltesting the alternate measures that would have to be taken would be unimaginable. Also the conditions of the animals are humane and commonly miss-represented. With all these benefits, I think it is very clear we need animaltesting.
Numerous people believe that animaltesting is un-necessary. Regardless, animaltesting is key in life saving treatments where, “Animal studies allow us to test potential treatments without confounding factors, such as prior drug use and other experiences that complicate human studies” (Proquest Staff). You can tell your family or friend who has suffered from and received treatment for cancer, strokes, heart disease, diabetes,...